This article is part of a series on the changing meaning of English words and its impact on the King James Only debate. To see the introduction to this series, click The King James Version and the changing use of words.

The meaning and usage of words change. Over time, definitions of common words often broaden, narrow, or shift completely from one meaning to another. Words that carried one sense in the past may now mean something completely different in present-day English. These changes can impact how we read, understand, and apply older English writings without our even realizing that we are misunderstanding what the author or translator meant. There are, for example, many such passages in the KJV, where words are used that carried one sense in 1611 but carry a quite different sense today. For an example of this, let’s consider the word “conversation.”

Our conversation is in Heaven

A conversation is a mutual exchange of words and ideas. You talk and I listen, then I talk and you listen; we’re having a conversation. And we use the word all the time. We speak of private conversations, public conversations, political conversations, personal conversations. Public figures often speak of our need for “conversations” on key issues. You’ll hear phrases like, “Its time we, as a society, start having a conversation about systemic racism,” or “The time has come to start a real conversation about gun control.” The point is that we not only have a clear, common meaning for the word “conversation” today, it is actually a rather important word in our typical discourse.  If someone talks about having a conversation, we are unlikely to pause for even a moment to wonder what they mean by the word.

Yet, this can get modern readers into trouble when we approach older English texts. The word “conversation” used to mean something quite different than it does today. We might be apt to misunderstand when Paul writes, for example:

“For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 3:20, KJV).

This wording does not convey to us today what the KJV translators intended to convey in their own day. Our “conversation” in heaven is not some kind of celestial dialogue. It’s not about talking to one another in heaven. Instead, a primary sense of the word “conversation” was “society, association, living together, or having dealings with one another.” Thus, the KJV translators actually meant roughly what our modern translators mean when they unanimously render the phrase as, “…our citizenship is in heaven…” (NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV, CSB, NET, MEV, etc.).

Such as be of upright what?

Even having noted this, we can run into still more trouble. What, for example, does the Psalmist mean when he writes?

“The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation,” (Psalm 37:14, KJV).

Who is it that the wicked have drawn the sword to slay? Who are the people of “upright conversation?” Our modern definition would say that they seek to slay people of worthy or moral discourse; people who talk of righteous things. On the surface, this seems plausible. Were not the prophets killed for daring to speak of righteous things to wicked people? Yet, this is not what the Psalm means. So, then, does it mean what we just saw above? Are the wicked seeking to slay those of “righteous citizenship” or “righteous association?” Again, we might think that the wicked are pagan enemies of Israel seeking to kill God’s people, those of the “righteous citizenship” to God’s holy nation in the Old Covenant. Yet, this too would not be correct.

The fact of the matter is that there is yet another meaning once attached to the word “conversation.” It was once a term for one’s actions, one’s behavior, one’s conduct. We can see this even in some of the older, pre-KJV English translations, which rendered the phrase here as things like:

“…rightful men of heart,” (Wycliffe Bible).

“…such as go the right way,” (Coverdale, see also Matthew Bible).

To “go the right way” was synonymous with being a person of “righteous conversation.” Both were ways of describing people of upright lives who performed righteous deeds. Similarly, modern translations speak of those:

“…who are upright in conduct,” (NASB, see also NKJV).

“…whose way is upright,” (ESV, see also NIV, CSB).

“…those on the upright path,” (MEV).

The wicked seek to persecute those who live righteously. This is what the KJV translators meant by “such as be of upright conversation.” They were here speaking of people of good deeds. Thus, the word “conversation” has at least three very distinct meanings. By itself, this is not as strange as it might sound. Think about words today like “trunk.” The trunk of a car is not the same thing as the trunk of a tree, which is also different than the trunk of an elephant. Still, two of the three meanings we have seen for “conversation” are quite alien to us today. Unlike “trunk,” we’re only used to hearing the word “conversation” in one basic sense, and it’s not the sense intended by the KJV translators, in whose day the other two meanings were predominant. Thus, the word can inadvertently be quite misleading to readers today.

The former conversation

To take just one more example, Paul also wrote:

“That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,” (Ephesians 4:22, KJV).

Here, we have a sentence that is already somewhat difficult for another reason. In 1611, our present-day standards of punctuation did not yet exist. A number of our punctuation marks were not used at all. Those that were, like commas, were not always used in the same way we would use them today. In this sentence, if it were written today, the phrase “concerning the former conversation” would be marked off with commas, thus making it easier to see that what we are to “put off” is “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.” The clause “concerning the former conversation” is explanatory but not grammatically necessary. Once we realize this, we can read the sentence much smoother.

That said, our primary concern here is on what is meant by the “former conversation.” Are we to put off the old man concerning our former discourse? Our former citizenship? Our former behavior? Any of these might fit the sentence, but only one can be correct. The Greek word from which the KJV translators rendered the word “conversation” here had a particular meaning, but which meaning? How do we know? If one knows biblical Greek or at least how to use a good lexicon, one can discover the answer that way, of course, but what about everyone else? Must they to just give it their best guess based on what makes most sense to them? No, there is another way. They can look at multiple translations and see how the same thing might be rendered in other words. For example, they might read:

“Do ye away by the old living the old man…” (Wycliffe Bible).

“…put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man…” (NKJV).

“…in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self…” (NASB, see also NIV)

“…take off your former way of life, the old self…” (CSB).

“…put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life…” (ESV).

Phrases like “old living,” “former conduct,” and “former manner of life,” help us to see that the KJV translators are using “conversation” in our third sense, the sense of one’s pattern of behavior. But for one who practices King James Onlyism, this would be far more difficult to determine with certainty.